Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
The Heresy of Philomena's Sainthood
Dear brothers and sisters, there is a heresy spreading in our Church. Based on the vision of a Catholic nun, and on no other evidence at all, people have started venerating a person named Philomena in our Coptic church. I've written an article against the heresy of her veneration. Please read it and be informed, as people are sadly led only by emotions and not the facts. Unless the Holy Synod finds evidence for her sainthood and canonizes her she should not be venerated in our Church.
https://orthodoxy.life/2019/05/16/philomena-in-the-coptic-church/
https://orthodoxy.life/2019/05/16/philomena-in-the-coptic-church/
Comments
St. Philomena is not canonized by the Coptic Church but she is recognized. This Saint was martyred before canonization was established for the Saint in the church so the church allows for her veneration in the church. Part of her body came to Egypt and some of it is in St. George Convent, in Old Egypt and in convents and monasteries they recognize her as a Saint because of the numerous miracles that God bestowed upon His people through her prayers. We do not venerate this Saint based on the accounts of a nun but based on what happened with Coptic Christians and in Egypt.
recognized without any formal rite of canonization. Local congregations
of the faithful simply began to remember certain well-known Christians
in their liturgical gatherings, to ask them for help in prayer, to visit
their relics, which frequently remained vehicles of the Holy Spirit,
curing the sick in soul and body, as they had during earthly life.
In the 10th century, in the west, the then-Orthodox Church of Rome
began to insist that saints be formally and officially “registered” as
such with the Roman authorities. The first recorded canonization of this
type was that of Ulrich of Augsburg, canonized in 993 by John XV. For
the next 600 years—during which time the Roman Catholic Church split off
from the Orthodox community—the west developed a very legalistic and
precise method of determining who were saints.
The Holy Orthodox Church never developed any comparable methods for
canonizing her saints. The situation remained very much determined by
local practices, local cults, and local traditions. Holy men and women
continued to be recognized as such during their own lifetime; they
continued to be venerated (honored) after their death; Christian people
continued to ask for their prayers and to visit their shrines."
Source : https://www.oca.org/fs/canonization
We're very new as a community to scholarship and it can be a bit of a two edged sword. Sometimes it takes you forward if you do something in harmony with tradition. Sometimes it takes you backwards when you attack the faith's own first principals. This I fear is one of those occasions. The danger is where spirituality is only accessible to those pure in heart, scholarship is open often excelled in by those with the greatest pride.
I cannot speak on the will of the author, I am certain they are someone of good nature, but we need to keep it real. Our fathers had a gift of revelation that they used to understand mysteries and articulate things beyond words. They were gifted with insight of the incarnation and trinity and set these things out for us in plain language. The indescribable nature was circumscribed in language. This knowledge on account of its origins is sacred and heavenly, it describes things beyond our educated systems of learning and insight. It did not ultimately come from man. As a result of it being revelatory and guided by principals of a heavenly tradition, we must make a distinction. Those who are the the fountainheads of such knowledge and the less gifted souls who study their works in academia. The former as guards against error, those who outlined the truth. The latter, failing to walk the same spiritual path eat the fruits of their labours but fall short of the life that produced it. We often forget the hours of prayer and scriptural study the fathers invested to yield that spiritual fruit. Short cutting that process puts the same knowledge into the hands of those less mature how did not arrive at it by means of cultivating a spiritual tree to yield the precious fruit. Our knowledge of God's mysteries is a sacred kind of knowledge, it was hidden until the appearance of Christ. The scholars among the Jews were confounded and Christ hand picked for himself 12 who were of lowly disposition.
Arius was a great scholar. Go and read his writings, it can be admitted without question. What he lacked was that he walked in his own intepretive framework and not that of Apostolic tradition. He had the academic gifts but not the fruit that comes with living tradition.
If the veracity of Saint Philomena is to be judged it must be done using the Spirit as a guide. Sainthood is the means by which the Church is reminded that Christ is alive and His resurrection bore fruit. Hence miracles and signs have to take precedence over any historical arguments a scholar might make as they come from a higher authority, the Holy Spirit.
Arius was a great scholar. Go and read his writings, it can be admitted without question. What he lacked was that he walked in his own intepretive framework and not that of Apostolic tradition. He had the academic gifts but not the fruit that comes with living tradition."
Ⲟⲩϫⲁⲓ ϧⲉⲛ Ⲡϭⲥ
Augustine is a heretic insofar as the dogma of filioque is concerned as it is a heresy in the Orthodox faith. The second point is that I was talking about his inclusion in the Synexarium (I believe in the year 2014), and the discrepancy between the two calendars, an area that I am particularly interested in..
Ⲟⲩϫⲁⲓ ϧⲉⲛ Ⲡϭⲥ
Well then let's agree to disagree. If the hierarchy agrees to something wrong then we must correct it. No one is infallible. It is not my personal view that he is a heretic by the way, we just happen to have some people these days who do not give heed to the forefathers, Orthodox teachings and watch too much TV..
Ⲟⲩϫⲁⲓ ϧⲉⲛ Ⲡϭⲥ
The time will come when God opens your eyes to such.
We Love You Saint Philomena, be with us always, Our Intercesssor!
She does have a history of veneration in Byzantine Orthodoxy, although I do believe she is only venerated in Catholic and Oriental Orthodox churches. I found a few academic articles, although they are all from Catholic sources. It's an interesting topic. I was initially told she wasn't a saint, yet when I hear her venerated in the doxologies, I saw this thread open back up and I had to add my two cents. My wife wants to name our daughter (if we have one) Philomena. So, a lot of people love her story and venerate her in our church. I'm just not sure there are any definitive details on how she became a saint in the our church if there is such a sketchy past with her story. I remember her growing up, but she isn't as venerated in Catholicism as Saint Monica or Saint Lucy. Interesting stuff.
I’d love to see the doxology you use for Her though, if that’s okay please!
There is a valid counter-point: Philomena would almost certainly pass the Oriental Orthodox bar for sainthood to the best of my knowledge: apparition, miracles, and over 50 years from the time of her death (unless you're Papa Abba Kyrillos VI). So if she passes the bar for being a saint, she's a saint, right? Well, the Synod needs to confirm it. So technically she's not a saint and should not be venerated- no doxologies/gospel responses/hymns/tamgeed, no intercessions, etc.
However, even that isn't a good enough reason not to, since raises questions about another similar-ish case: Pope Shenouda III.
But I think it's common sentiment that honoring his departure is the right thing to do nowadays, even if he isn't officially recognized as a saint like Papa Abba Kyrillos is.
So I think a good-faith argument could be made that Philomena is as much a saint as Pope Shenouda- that it comes down to the Synod making it official, and that the person is in heaven.
Twbh `e`hryi `ejwi
@Daniel_Kyrillos I guess you raised very important points. Pope Shenouda should not be venerated as a saint now and I would discourage any member of the synod to even advocate for this. There is a very important reason why 50 years have to pass so that a saint's life, deeds (not necessarily miracles) are seen and felt by more than their concurrent generations. Pope Kyrollos VI was close to 50 years and the criteria are clear in his case (not that I am defending exceptions anyway).
In short, it is a slippery slope to follow sentiments and emotions in the church. It happened before and it keeps happening and it is wrong. The church canons are there for a reason. The forefathers' teachings are there for a reason. We, or the synod should not tweak things because they sound nice or because the majority of people would like it. No. We are not subjective, but objective. Jesus Christ is not subjective. He is the truth, the absoluteness (is that a word) and the just judge. We follow the straight path handed down to us, and not tweak it since we live in a different generation to Pope Athanasius or anyone else.. Very wrong to think like that..
Ⲟⲩϫⲁⲓ ϧⲉⲛ Ⲡϭⲥ